Dear Modest,
Your screen-name couldn’t be any more appropriate. I must admit that I am literally “blown away” by the links you provided, esp. the first. (Sorry about the slang but whenever my emotions are stirred I seem to revert to the surfer lingo of my youth.) I must say, I have never seen any of these papers before. The 1st Ripalda paper especially excites me. Up until today, I have tried very hard to hold off from giving an absolute assessment concerning General Relativity, string theory, or a number of other applications. The reason is simple, if the Dominium model is correct, then some preexisting models will be necessarily incorrect, depending on whether or not they rely on a cornerstone of “universal attraction.”
There is also another reason that I hold my tongue: because I realize my own ignorance in those fields. My strength and training come from analyzing complex and poorly understood systems. The methodology used to construct the Dominium model is the ancient (though just as good now as it was centuries ago) syllogistic deductive method. Although the deductive method was applied to all aspects of nature early on, until recently has there been enough verifiable data to be able to formulate categorical premises accurately. Also, I believe very strongly that the wisest of people are those who know where they are ignorant; and the greatest of scientists are those who know what is verified by evidence and what is only propped up with assumption. I try very hard to reserve judgment when I do not yet possess the tools to judge.
I have also held my tongue about General Relativity because I “know” that if the Dominium is
correct then necessarily there
will be a way to prove its conclusions mathematically… so long as the math is conducted correctly. Honestly, I was hoping that either General Relativity, or some other application of math, would come along and confirm the Dominium predictions/conclusions.
I can’t tell you how
delighted I am to have read your post and then read those papers. No, I’m not saying that those papers are necessarily correct; but it warms my heart that someone else reached the same conclusions using completely different methodology. It is easily the best news I have read in ages. I could tell this was a darn good forum after reading the first comments!
As far as Supernova 1987 is concerned, I know of that event quite well. It was one of the first places that people strongly considered gravitational repulsion. However, folks entrenched in theories based on “universal attraction” jumped on that topic and published papers slamming the idea. Their main methodology was an oversimplified proof, where the entire Universe was ignored (except our solar system.) In this oversimplified view, they calculated that the separation would be “months” apart rather than the recorded 12 sec. The problem with this reasoning is that the calculation could have been wrong simply because of the oversimplified conditions considered, but not because gravitational repulsion is incorrect. Besides, nothing in any of the papers published to diminish the importance of Supernova 1987 can diminish the actual statistical significance of a 12 sec gap between peaks of neutrinos vs antineutrinos. To be all honest, knowledge of Supernova 1987 was one of the first evidentiary “anomalies” that made me consider alternate possibilities, like gravitational repulsion.
(PS: You say that you haven’t read the book, The Dominium, I published on this model… good, I guess. I must admit, had I not been in such a rush and had a chance to write it again I would have toned it down. The science, I wouldn’t have changed, but I wouldn’t have highlighted the potential dangers implicated by the new model as nearly as strongly as I did. You might enjoy the papers at
The Dominium & stay tuned there’s at least 12 more moves to reach a complete and comprehensive model of the past, present, and future Universe… that is, if the deductive steps used are sound.)
